THE CRC: LESSONS LEARNED
Category: COMMENTARY
LIFE AND LIVABILITY
There is not an easy answer to the question of what the best place is to live in here in the United States. Because of our societal structure and cultural diversity, people have many options in choosing a desirable residence. Some may choose to reside in urban or suburban environments. Others may prefer the quiet and tranquility of rural areas. Regardless, there are many options for one to choose from.
There are many factors that may impact the preference for one environment over another. Personal, financial, or cultural factors may have a great influence in where one chooses to set their roots or raise a family. Beyond our inner scope, public policy factors can also nudge our decision one way or another. Given the relative ease of relocation, compared to the past, the decision to reside in one location can change. External factors can drive such change.
For more, please click above to experience the Life & Livability podcast.
LIVING THE DREAM
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is an iconic figure in the annals of American history. Dr. King exemplified the ability for an individual outside the typical halls of power to make indelible change in our society. All Americans, regardless of background, benefited from Dr. King’s message. A message establishing hope for a society united harmoniously regardless of race. Despite our challenges, America must strive to reduce social tension related to race, gender, and other demographics.
There is no easy answer to solve the racial tensions that seem to plague our society all to often. As the most diverse nation in the world, conflicting needs combined with past transgressions create challenges for identifying a workable and realistic solution. Strong emotions and unwavering political views harden stances. Our cultural political conditions create unnecessary dichotomies preventing society from solving many of our important issues. Until society can have a true honest dialogue surrounding our tensions, there really is no way forward.
An obstacle is some want to move past the issue by overlooking the need to address discrimination in its current form. Others want to weaponize discrimination and view every social conflict in the context of discrimination. Both sides miss the middle ground. Society needs to be able to address incidents without regression to division. There will always be conflicts or incidents involving different races. Facts must be vetted before one jumps to conclusions or dismisses possibilities.
The biggest impact society can accomplish in the near term is to reduce tensions and eliminate violence related to discrimination. There has yet to be a year in recent memory where headlines did not include stories covering the loss of life related to some form of discrimination. Whether it is a large- or small-scale event, hate crimes need to be stopped. People should not loss their lives for the mental illness of others. Society must fight hate in all its forms, not only the politically convenient.
Peoples must at a basic level respect the right for others to exist. Respect the right to life, life, and the pursuit of happiness of all, not a select few. One does not have to agree with or embrace another’s views or values, but one should respect their rights. The great aspect of America is the belief in openness for all and universal personal and political freedoms for all citizens. Also, it does not hurt to experience another culture or seek to bridge the gap between cultures by sharing commonalities.
Our failed attempts at fighting discrimination have largely resulted in a more divided society due to inconsistency. Resulted in more discriminatory feelings. Some use too broad of a paintbrush in exploiting every incident, creating groups to emote anger, resentment, and division. There is a need to combat discrimination and hate. But, there needs to be push towards ensuring justice and moving communities towards forgiveness and unity. Forgiveness is a critical aspect in American life that many miss.
Society needs to combat all forms of hate. Not only the politically convenient forms. Social harmony will not happen when hatred is ignored in certain circumstances and overreacted to in others. The approach only reinforces stereotypes of inequity, as one race bears the complete responsibility. In reality, all bear some responsibility. Hate will be defeated by love, learning, and tolerance, not entitlement, revenge, and anger.
No one can be sure if America will ever reach Dr. King’s Dream. That does not mean our society should stop trying. There is a clear need to identify a new path and dogma around the issue.
THE ECONOMY
The economy is always a salient issue in every national election. The state of the economy directly impacts all people and serves as the foundation for all functions of society. Therefore, success in political campaigns requires that candidates have effective policy positions and overall visions for the future of our economy.
Many voters cast ballots with significant weight placed on their perception of how a chosen candidates’ economic policies will impact their wallets both short term and long term. Consideration given to how well policies will provide stability in employment, growth in investments, and future career opportunities.
Hysteria, marketing tactics, and pure misinformation can cloud how one views the condition and state of the economy. Prospective voters should understand what a good economy looks like and how it is measured. Understand basic economic principles underlying political talking points. Understand how government policy really impacts the economy.
A common answer in economics is the phrase “it depends”, which is applicable in judging how our economy is performing. There are many viewpoints to consider when evaluating our economy. A macro view looking at overall growth and wealth creation across our society. Or a micro view look at the economic condition of individuals in our society.
The term “economic growth” is commonly thrown around as clickbait in news coverage, which simply means our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was higher in the current period than the previous one. Conversely, an economic recession is when our GDP is lower in the current period than the previous one.
GDP measures the productivity of our domestically owned economic interests. Another measure used is Gross National Product (GNP), which measures productivity occurring within our borders. For more globally connected economies, GDP provides a broader view of the economic performance because some assets may be deployed overseas.
From a bird’s eye view, economic growth is good and desirable. Greater GDP and GNP reflects a nation’s collective wealth is expanding. Economists balance their view of the economy with more in-depth measures that reflect how well that growth spreads through society. Ideally, economic growth should create jobs, expand wealth, and improve productivity.
Periods of sustainable economic growth can help business decision makers choose to expand payrolls, depending on consumer demand and cost impact. More overall jobs can help spur wage growth as workers can market their skill set. Moreover, economic growth can help spark investment into innovations like new technology or new markets and industries.
A summary for defining a good economy is one that experience sustained economic growth creating net new jobs, expanding wealth through wage increases and investment returns, and creates incentives for innovation and entrepreneurial pursuits. A good economy provides increased government revenue through the numerous taxes levied by federal and state agencies.
The critical aspect for a good economy is creating opportunity. The source for American greatness over the years was opportunity and pursuit of success, whether financial or personal achievement. Unlike other economies, the United States economy is driven by the people, based on what is consumed and invested in. People make what people want.
The United States is the land of opportunity, which is why America is the clear global leader in immigration, bringing in people from around the world seeking better lives for their families. People enjoy the economic freedom to chase their dreams, leveraging hard work, ambition, and creativity to pursue all forms of success.
A nation built on the principles of self governance should maintain an economy affording economic freedom and uncapped success. Society is much better off if all take up the challenge of pursuing success and pushing the limits of human achievement. Risk can bear rewards well beyond the risk taker, who deserves to be compensated for their risk.
There is no perfect economic system, but free market capitalism by far does much better job of reducing overall poverty than any other model. Despite this fact, there are some challenges policymakers must address with appropriate policy measures and regulation. Keyword appropriate, as much of our economic issues are a direct result of regulatory missteps.
There always will be some people who struggle to compete in a dynamic economy like ours. Our economy rewards ingenuity, ambition, productivity, and innovation. Many people work hard, but are not able to find ways to make themselves stand out in crowded labor markets. The focus should be assisting them in skill acquisition instead of the politics of jealousy.
There is no real proof that government centric economic systems are sustainable in the long run. Many nations operating government centered economies fail to create jobs, grow wealth, and reduce cost for those living under these systems. Poverty, social violence, and international bailouts are a common theme in these nations.
No matter how often candidates re-brand failed economic policies of the path, society must choose to stay on the path that made the United States great. Focus on growth, job creation, wealth creation, and improving our social skill development systems. Empower people not government. A nation of the people should have an economy of the people as well.
THE CRC: ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN POLITICS
There is not a single person who wants interference with our local, state, or national elections. The reality of life is that foreign influence campaigns in politics occurred long before the 2016 presidential cycle. It probably will happen again to some degree.
The impact from the influence campaign from Russian actors is highly exaggerated for political reasons. The campaign was poorly executed and there is no real proof that people changed their votes based on the clearly misleading information presented.
The hysteria is leading policymakers to place undue responsibility on social media companies to regulate political advertisements as well as speech on their platforms. Conveniently, private firms do not have constitutional restrictions government deals with.
Facebook and Twitter responded to social and political pressures in completely different manners. Facebook wants no part of suppressing free expression as it pushes back against criticism. On the other hand, Twitter decided to no longer accept paid political ads.
There is a general unfairness in attempting to make private firms shoulder the responsibility of policing speech. Government is essentially seeking a loophole to get around constitutional protections covering free expression. Censorship is not an appropriate response to fake news.
Early efforts to filter content demonstrated a clear existence of political and ideological biases at the highest levels of social media companies. Any non-liberal non-Democratic voices were silenced by so called moderators, especially many legitimate conservative media members.
The best defender against fake news is an educated, engaged, and informed society. While all should act in society’s best interest, there is always inaccurate or incomplete information out there. Not always purposeful but can still have the same impact.
People who read a wide variety of legitimate news sources and stay abreast of issues can clearly identify and filter out fake news. The advertisements used in 2016 were clearly unconvincing and amateurish. Many were released well after primary contest ended in the impacted state.
The real focus should be ensuring foreign governments cannot manipulate election results by altering vote counts or inappropriately accessing election data. States need to improve their systems and protocols around balloting. Paper ballots is an unnecessary regression.
Foreign governments may always seek to influence. The United States too might continue influencing foreign elections. The key is to ensure the voters voices is truly reflected in the results. In 2016, the voice of the voters was heard.
THE CRC: CHANGE AFTER CHANGE
Cindi McCain, widow of Late Sen. John McCain, commented that the current form of the GOP is not the same party that her husband served under for decades. In many ways, she is spot on.
The modern-day GOP is much different than the one that nominated Sen. McCain in 2008. In the same manner, the modern-day Democratic Party is much different than the party that elected Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Both the Republican and Democratic Party experienced strong shifts in the attitudes of their bases, which led to the purge of many moderate candidates. Including center right and center left in favor of more ideologically rigid ones.
The problem seen with moderate candidates was the inability to take accountability for policy failures as well as an overt focus on their own electoral and political outcomes rather than the policy impact on constituents.
For instance, Republicans grew tired of candidates running on conservative principles while campaigning only to govern almost similarly to their Democratic counterparts once elected.
The sheer number of unsatisfied voter groups in both parties made it clear to current candidates campaigning on salient principles better govern under those principles or face the prospect of a short time in office.
As we know, the appeal of candidates like President Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders is the perception of authenticity, using straight talk instead of carefully crafted and vetted political speak.
The more politically rigid tribes of both parties appear to prefer candidates that wear their emotions on their sleeves. Preferring populist theme in campaign style which places greater importance on emotions that rationale.
Many of these political rigid factions are not interested in seeing our political parties compromise, negotiate, or cooperate, but stake unyielding positions that make every issue a crisis.
The main goal for many supporting change in 2016 was to reposition the focus of elected officials, not create a chaotic style of government focused on power grabs, hysteria, and barbs traded back and forth.
All change brings intended and unintended consequences. The intended complete economic revival and strengthening of our national security, but unintended strong division and hysteria driven obstruction in response.
Where is the adult in this environment? A good question as no one has the incentive to take the high road or be the voice of reason. Any middle of the road sentiment will be mischaracterized for political fodder.
The media traditionally plays the voice of reason amid partisan bickering. But, many media members are not sitting on the sidelines this time. Many are taking sides and seeking to influence political outcomes.
Journalists traditionally separate their political and personal leanings from the underlying truths in coverage. While there are plenty of good journalistic content out there, many purposely cover issues from a slanted view.
The vetting of stories and investigative journalism does not appear to be at the same level in the Trump Era, as soundbites do more for ratings and clicks, especially amongst those holding strong anti-Trump views.
Many news organizations are not willing to set aside emotions around the subject of coverage, which clearly impacts how they cover that subject and what the editorial boards approve for release.
Journalists should cover subjects in a fair and objective manner, reporting facts consistently. Independent press is a fundamental institution in our society, but the press is not independent when there is a clear political agenda.
Every major problem in our society is typically solved by people, either through voices or innovations in our private sector. An important step forward will be shifts in attitudes and behaviors regarding politics.
Change not in who, but how they support a candidate, political party, or ideology. The idea of engaging with those that think differently or hold views that are not same is a foreign concept to some.
Political cheerleading and tribalism sentiments make many on the fringe believe that politics should be about who can yell the loudest or can harass their opponents the best. All better solved with negotiation, compromise, and debate.
The reality in politics is people you disagree can be right at times, even if you still disagree with their policies and points of view. Additionally, not every action, view, or behavior of favored candidates is right.
The political tribes in our society of those staunchly supporting or opposing President Trump rationalize every event, issue, and problem under the framework of their support.
The reality for those supporting President Trump is that while his policies prove effective, many of his behaviors are not appropriate for the office he holds. Supporters should be able to acknowledge this.
The reality for Democrats that staunchly oppose President Trump is that the party is highly obsessed with removing him from office and their actions reflect that of a political witch hunt, not enforcing federal law.
Prospective voters do not have to disavow support because of some flaws but should be acknowledge the shortcomings of their candidates and objectively account for them in their evaluations.
Consider how different President Trump would be viewed if could avoid some of the tweets that riled up many in our society? If he did not respond to every provocation with blunt force.
Consider how little Democrats have done while obsessing over Trump. How anger led the party platform to embrace social and economic ideals Americans long rejected. Ones that failed and impoverished millions across the globe.
Instead of enjoying the comforts of your political tribe, venture out and engage with people that oppose your point of view. Both can learn a great deal in respectful and deliberate discussions.
Then one can understand the greater possibilities that come with compromise and negotiation instead of partisan hysteria and anger. Our politics needed change, but not a complete overhaul.
The modern-day GOP is much different than the one that nominated Sen. McCain in 2008. In the same manner, the modern-day Democratic Party is much different than the party that elected Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Both the Republican and Democratic Party experienced strong shifts in the attitudes of their bases, which led to the purge of many moderate candidates. Including center right and center left in favor of more ideologically rigid ones.
The problem seen with moderate candidates was the inability to take accountability for policy failures as well as an overt focus on their own electoral and political outcomes rather than the policy impact on constituents.
For instance, Republicans grew tired of candidates running on conservative principles while campaigning only to govern almost similarly to their Democratic counterparts once elected.
The sheer number of unsatisfied voter groups in both parties made it clear to current candidates campaigning on salient principles better govern under those principles or face the prospect of a short time in office.
As we know, the appeal of candidates like President Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders is the perception of authenticity, using straight talk instead of carefully crafted and vetted political speak.
The more politically rigid tribes of both parties appear to prefer candidates that wear their emotions on their sleeves. Preferring populist theme in campaign style which places greater importance on emotions that rationale.
Many of these political rigid factions are not interested in seeing our political parties compromise, negotiate, or cooperate, but stake unyielding positions that make every issue a crisis.
The main goal for many supporting change in 2016 was to reposition the focus of elected officials, not create a chaotic style of government focused on power grabs, hysteria, and barbs traded back and forth.
All change brings intended and unintended consequences. The intended complete economic revival and strengthening of our national security, but unintended strong division and hysteria driven obstruction in response.
Where is the adult in this environment? A good question as no one has the incentive to take the high road or be the voice of reason. Any middle of the road sentiment will be mischaracterized for political fodder.
The media traditionally plays the voice of reason amid partisan bickering. But, many media members are not sitting on the sidelines this time. Many are taking sides and seeking to influence political outcomes.
Journalists traditionally separate their political and personal leanings from the underlying truths in coverage. While there are plenty of good journalistic content out there, many purposely cover issues from a slanted view.
The vetting of stories and investigative journalism does not appear to be at the same level in the Trump Era, as soundbites do more for ratings and clicks, especially amongst those holding strong anti-Trump views.
Many news organizations are not willing to set aside emotions around the subject of coverage, which clearly impacts how they cover that subject and what the editorial boards approve for release.
Journalists should cover subjects in a fair and objective manner, reporting facts consistently. Independent press is a fundamental institution in our society, but the press is not independent when there is a clear political agenda.
Every major problem in our society is typically solved by people, either through voices or innovations in our private sector. An important step forward will be shifts in attitudes and behaviors regarding politics.
Change not in who, but how they support a candidate, political party, or ideology. The idea of engaging with those that think differently or hold views that are not same is a foreign concept to some.
Political cheerleading and tribalism sentiments make many on the fringe believe that politics should be about who can yell the loudest or can harass their opponents the best. All better solved with negotiation, compromise, and debate.
The reality in politics is people you disagree can be right at times, even if you still disagree with their policies and points of view. Additionally, not every action, view, or behavior of favored candidates is right.
The political tribes in our society of those staunchly supporting or opposing President Trump rationalize every event, issue, and problem under the framework of their support.
The reality for those supporting President Trump is that while his policies prove effective, many of his behaviors are not appropriate for the office he holds. Supporters should be able to acknowledge this.
The reality for Democrats that staunchly oppose President Trump is that the party is highly obsessed with removing him from office and their actions reflect that of a political witch hunt, not enforcing federal law.
Prospective voters do not have to disavow support because of some flaws but should be acknowledge the shortcomings of their candidates and objectively account for them in their evaluations.
Consider how different President Trump would be viewed if could avoid some of the tweets that riled up many in our society? If he did not respond to every provocation with blunt force.
Consider how little Democrats have done while obsessing over Trump. How anger led the party platform to embrace social and economic ideals Americans long rejected. Ones that failed and impoverished millions across the globe.
Instead of enjoying the comforts of your political tribe, venture out and engage with people that oppose your point of view. Both can learn a great deal in respectful and deliberate discussions.
Then one can understand the greater possibilities that come with compromise and negotiation instead of partisan hysteria and anger. Our politics needed change, but not a complete overhaul.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: NON-EMPLOYEE EMPLOYEES
The State of California took a controversial and questionable step in altering the employment relationship between many organizations and their independent contractors. California enacted legislation requiring companies to consider most classes of independent contractors as employees of the company. Proponents of the law praise access to many potential legal protections afforded to company employees. Opponents decry the potential negative impact it will have on businesses, especially ones that almost exclusively hire contract employees. As one can expect that other states will consider similar legislation, there is a need to better clarify what workers will be protected and provide clear exemptions for the obvious situations of true independent contract work.
The intent of the law is to close the loophole companies use to avoid labor costs, such as benefits and certain types of taxes, by using contract employees or independent contractors to fill key roles in worker pool. In the State of California, regulations cover employees of a company employees with benefits requirements, wage protections, and other workplace rules. For the most part, California exempts independent contractors from these rules, which makes them attractive to companies looking to lower cost associated with labor. There is a strong argument, which California accepts, that independent contractors are not truly independent when many companies enjoy great control over these workers and these workers perform the same duties as current employees. Worker rights groups and prominent labor unions pushed this narrative, as unions will see this as a path to expand access a broader pool of potential members.
Generally, a person is considered an independent contractor if they operate outside the direct supervision of the payer and enjoy control over work schedule, equipment used, and cost control. The payer, the company or person, may negotiate a fee schedule, provide a definition of the deliverable, and deadlines, but the independent contractor has control over the process and how they arrive at the deliverable. In the cases of true independent contractor relationships, organizations may seek to exert greater influence on how the end product is produced, as regulatory bodies and customers require greater insight into supply chains, including professional services. For instance, one might want to protect against contractors that might hire illegal or child labor or freely associate with criminal activity. Sometimes the burden is on the company to ensure compliance of expected behavior beyond the contractual clauses.
Another factor to consider is the growth in popularity of freelancing relationships, especially among younger workers. Many of these workers graduated into the stagnant economy during the Obama era, where permanent full time opportunities were limited, but when many tech companies offered new opportunities. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and others provided a way for people to earn compensation on their own schedule using the companies app. Besides some terms and conditions aimed at protecting end consumers, users of these apps were free to work at the own convenience, create their own strategy to maximize profits, and come and go as they pleased. The gig economy was born out of necessity created by an economic environment that did not create jobs, which many do enjoy working under.
These users clearly fall under the definition of independent contractor. While tech startups enjoy great profitability projections and popularity, the type of labor used still falls under the acceptable definition. Other service industry workers received exemptions from California. Service industry workers like barbers and hair stylists are considered independent contractors, although their shops enjoy greater control over the work process and cost generation than the tech startups. These companies could do more to provide access to benefits, but rules should be consistent, not based solely on the profitability of the entity.
Another factor to consider is the growth in popularity of freelancing relationships, especially among younger workers. Many of these workers graduated into the stagnant economy during the Obama era, where permanent full time opportunities were limited, but when many tech companies offered new opportunities. Companies like Uber, Lyft, and others provided a way for people to earn compensation on their own schedule using the companies app. Besides some terms and conditions aimed at protecting end consumers, users of these apps were free to work at the own convenience, create their own strategy to maximize profits, and come and go as they pleased. The gig economy was born out of necessity created by an economic environment that did not create jobs, which many do enjoy working under.
These users clearly fall under the definition of independent contractor. While tech startups enjoy great profitability projections and popularity, the type of labor used still falls under the acceptable definition. Other service industry workers received exemptions from California. Service industry workers like barbers and hair stylists are considered independent contractors, although their shops enjoy greater control over the work process and cost generation than the tech startups. These companies could do more to provide access to benefits, but rules should be consistent, not based solely on the profitability of the entity.
The appropriate area of regulation is where organizations bring in these workers to perform duties similar to those of staffed employees. Many staffing companies provide organizations with contract labor to supplement existing worker bases without the cost of benefits and certain types of taxes. The company enjoys control over them as if they are staff, but also enjoys the lower cost of labor. These relationships are ones states like California should seek to apply the new regulations to. There is a plethora of contract employees performing exactly the same duties as staff employees at a much lower rate and benefit free from both the organization and the staffing agency.
The clear path forward is focusing regulation on labor sourced through staffing agencies where workers perform the same duties as current employees. Placing limitations of periods of temporary employment or greater rules around temporary to permanent positions may help improve access to benefits and tax dollars. But, gig economy organizations do deserve some level of exemption from classifying their users as employees. These users are not employees and operate under the clear definition of independent contractor. Companies could also help their case by providing optional access to benefits packages to users that utilize the app for a defined period.
The clear path forward is focusing regulation on labor sourced through staffing agencies where workers perform the same duties as current employees. Placing limitations of periods of temporary employment or greater rules around temporary to permanent positions may help improve access to benefits and tax dollars. But, gig economy organizations do deserve some level of exemption from classifying their users as employees. These users are not employees and operate under the clear definition of independent contractor. Companies could also help their case by providing optional access to benefits packages to users that utilize the app for a defined period.
The closing of the loophole is well intended as many companies are going too far in their labor strategies and leave many people exposed. But, policymakers should protect the availability of contract labor and independent work relationships, which benefit millions. Many people understand what they are signing for and accept the conditions. Regulate where appropriate, but in a fair and consistent manner. Understandably, the worker rights group and labor unions did not fund this effort without expecting access to these worker pools to bolster potential members.
THE CRC: CROWD SHAMING
Pictures may tell a thousand words but never the whole story. Please click above to experience Crowd Shaming to see how society jumps to conclusions fairly or unfairly.
POLITICAL FALLACIES